RFC 791 – Internet Protocol

is based on the need to
provide a way to uniquely identify the fragments of a particular
datagram. The protocol module assembling fragments judges fragments
to belong to the same datagram if they have the same source,
destination, protocol, and Identifier. Thus, the sender must choose
the Identifier to be unique for this source, destination pair and
protocol for the time the datagram (or any fragment of it) could be
alive in the internet.
It seems then that a sending protocol module needs to keep a table
of Identifiers, one entry for each destination it has communicated
with in the last maximum packet lifetime for the internet.
However, since the Identifier field allows 65,536 different values,
some host may be able to simply use unique identifiers independent
of destination.
It is appropriate for some higher level protocols to choose the
identifier. For example, TCP protocol modules may retransmit an
identical TCP segment, and the probability for correct reception
would be enhanced if the retransmission carried the same identifier
as the original transmission since fragments of either datagram
could be used to construct a correct TCP segment.
Type of Service
The type of service (TOS) is for internet service quality selection.
The type of service is specified along the abstract parameters
precedence, delay, throughput, and reliability. These abstract
parameters are to be mapped into the actual service parameters of
the particular networks the datagram traverses.
Precedence. An independent measure of the importance of this
datagram.
Delay. Prompt delivery is important for datagrams with this
indication.
Throughput. High data rate is important for datagrams with this
indication.
[Page 29]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Specification
Reliability. A higher level of effort to ensure delivery is
important for datagrams with this indication.
For example, the ARPANET has a priority bit, and a choice between
"standard" messages (type 0) and "uncontrolled" messages (type 3),
(the choice between single packet and multipacket messages can also
be considered a service parameter). The uncontrolled messages tend
to be less reliably delivered and suffer less delay. Suppose an
internet datagram is to be sent through the ARPANET. Let the
internet type of service be given as:
Precedence: 5
Delay: 0
Throughput: 1
Reliability: 1
In this example, the mapping of these parameters to those available
for the ARPANET would be to set the ARPANET priority bit on since
the Internet precedence is in the upper half of its range, to select
standard messages since the throughput and reliability requirements
are indicated and delay is not. More details are given on service
mappings in "Service Mappings" [8].
Time to Live
The time to live is set by the sender to the maximum time the
datagram is allowed to be in the internet system. If the datagram
is in the internet system longer than the time to live, then the
datagram must be destroyed.
This field must be decreased at each point that the internet header
is processed to reflect the time spent processing the datagram.
Even if no local information is available on the time actually
spent, the field must be decremented by 1. The time is measured in
units of seconds (i.e. the value 1 means one second). Thus, the
maximum time to live is 255 seconds or 4.25 minutes. Since every
module that processes a datagram must decrease the TTL by at least
one even if it process the datagram in less than a second, the TTL
must be thought of only as an upper bound on the time a datagram may
exist. The intention is to cause undeliverable datagrams to be
discarded, and to bound the maximum datagram lifetime.
Some higher level reliable connection protocols are based on
assumptions that old duplicate datagrams will not arrive after a
certain time elapses. The TTL is a way for such protocols to have
an assurance that their assumption is met.
[Page 30]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Specification
Options
The options are optional in each datagram, but required in
implementations. That is, the presence or absence of an option is
the choice of the sender, but each internet module must be able to
parse every option. There can be several options present in the
option field.
The options might not end on a 32-bit boundary. The internet header
must be filled out with octets of zeros. The first of these would
be interpreted as the end-of-options option, and the remainder as
internet header padding.
Every internet module must be able to act on every option. The
Security Option is required if classified, restricted, or
compartmented traffic is to be passed.
Checksum
The internet header checksum is recomputed if the internet header is
changed. For example, a reduction of the time to live, additions or
changes to internet options, or due to fragmentation. This checksum
at the internet level is intended to protect the internet header
fields from transmission errors.
There are some applications where a few data bit errors are
acceptable while retransmission delays are not. If the internet
protocol enforced data correctness such applications could not be
supported.
Errors
Internet protocol errors may be reported via the ICMP messages [3].
3.3. Interfaces
The functional description of user interfaces to the IP is, at best,
fictional, since every operating system will have different
facilities. Consequently, we must warn readers that different IP
implementations may have different user interfaces. However, all IPs
must provide a certain minimum set of services to guarantee that all
IP implementations can support the same protocol hierarchy. This
section specifies the functional interfaces required of all IP
implementations.
Internet protocol interfaces on one side to the local network and on
the other side to either a higher level protocol or an application
program. In the following, the higher level protocol or application
[Page 31]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Specification
program (or even a gateway program) will be called the "user" since it
is using the internet module. Since internet protocol is a datagram
protocol, there is minimal memory or state maintained between datagram
transmissions, and each call on the internet protocol module by the
user supplies all information necessary for the IP to perform the
service requested.
An Example Upper Level Interface
The following two example calls satisfy the requirements for the user
to internet protocol module communication ("=>" means returns):
SEND (src, dst, prot, TOS, TTL, BufPTR, len, Id, DF, opt => result)
where:
src = source address
dst = destination address
prot = protocol
TOS = type of service
TTL = time to live
BufPTR = buffer pointer
len = length of buffer
Id = Identifier
DF = Don't Fragment
opt = option data
result = response
OK = datagram sent ok
Error = error in arguments or local network error
Note that the precedence is included in the TOS and the
security/compartment is passed as an option.
RECV (BufPTR, prot, => result, src, dst, TOS, len, opt)
where:
BufPTR = buffer pointer
prot = protocol
result = response
OK = datagram received ok
Error = error in arguments
len = length of buffer
src = source address
dst = destination address
TOS = type of service
opt = option data
[Page 32]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Specification
When the user sends a datagram, it executes the SEND call supplying
all the arguments. The internet protocol module, on receiving this
call, checks the arguments and prepares and sends the message. If the
arguments are good and the datagram is accepted by the local network,
the call returns successfully. If either the arguments are bad, or
the datagram is not accepted by the local network, the call returns
unsuccessfully. On unsuccessful returns, a reasonable report must be
made as to the cause of the problem, but the details of such reports
are up to individual implementations.
When a datagram arrives at the internet protocol module from the local
network, either there is a pending RECV call from the user addressed
or there is not. In the first case, the pending call is satisfied by
passing the information from the datagram to the user. In the second
case, the user addressed is notified of a pending datagram. If the
user addressed does not exist, an ICMP error message is returned to
the sender, and the data is discarded.
The notification of a user may be via a pseudo interrupt or similar
mechanism, as appropriate in the particular operating system
environment of the implementation.
A user's RECV call may then either be immediately satisfied by a
pending datagram, or the call may be pending until a datagram arrives.
The source address is included in the send call in case the sending
host has several addresses (multiple physical connections or logical
addresses). The internet module must check to see that the source
address is one of the legal address for this host.
An implementation may also allow or require a call to the internet
module to indicate interest in or reserve exclusive use of a class of
datagrams (e.g., all those with a certain value in the protocol
field).
This section functionally characterizes a USER/IP interface. The
notation used is similar to most procedure of function calls in high
level languages, but this usage is not meant to rule out trap type
service calls (e.g., SVCs, UUOs, EMTs), or any other form of
interprocess communication.
[Page 33]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
APPENDIX A: Examples & Scenarios
Example 1:
This is an example of the minimal data carrying internet datagram:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver= 4 |IHL= 5 |Type of Service| Total Length = 21 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification = 111 |Flg=0| Fragment Offset = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time = 123 | Protocol = 1 | header checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| source address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| destination address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Example Internet Datagram
Figure 5.
Note that each tick mark represents one bit position.
This is a internet datagram in version 4 of internet protocol; the
internet header consists of five 32 bit words, and the total length of
the datagram is 21 octets. This datagram is a complete datagram (not
a fragment).
[Page 34]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Example 2:
In this example, we show first a moderate size internet datagram (452
data octets), then two internet fragments that might result from the
fragmentation of this datagram if the maximum sized transmission
allowed were 280 octets.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver= 4 |IHL= 5 |Type of Service| Total Length = 472 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification = 111 |Flg=0| Fragment Offset = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time = 123 | Protocol = 6 | header checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| source address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| destination address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
\ \
\ \
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Example Internet Datagram
Figure 6.
[Page 35]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Now the first fragment that results from splitting the datagram after
256 data octets.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver= 4 |IHL= 5 |Type of Service| Total Length = 276 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification = 111 |Flg=1| Fragment Offset = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time = 119 | Protocol = 6 | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| source address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| destination address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
\ \
\ \
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Example Internet Fragment
Figure 7.
[Page 36]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
And the second fragment.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver= 4 |IHL= 5 |Type of Service| Total Length = 216 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification = 111 |Flg=0| Fragment Offset = 32 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time = 119 | Protocol = 6 | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| source address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| destination address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
\ \
\ \
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Example Internet Fragment
Figure 8.
[Page 37]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Example 3:
Here, we show an example of a datagram containing options:
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|Ver= 4 |IHL= 8 |Type of Service| Total Length = 576 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Identification = 111 |Flg=0| Fragment Offset = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Time = 123 | Protocol = 6 | Header Checksum |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| source address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| destination address |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opt. Code = x | Opt. Len.= 3 | option value | Opt. Code = x |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opt. Len. = 4 | option value | Opt. Code = 1 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Opt. Code = y | Opt. Len. = 3 | option value | Opt. Code = 0 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
\ \
\ \
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| data |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Example Internet Datagram
Figure 9.
[Page 38]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
APPENDIX B: Data Transmission Order
The order of transmission of the header and data described in this
document is resolved to the octet level. Whenever a diagram shows a
group of octets, the order of transmission of those octets is the normal
order in which they are read in English. For example, in the following
diagram the octets are transmitted in the order they are numbered.
0 1 2 3
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Transmission Order of Bytes
Figure 10.
Whenever an octet represents a numeric quantity the left most bit in the
diagram is the high order or most significant bit. That is, the bit
labeled 0 is the most significant bit. For example, the following
diagram represents the value 170 (decimal).
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0|
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Significance of Bits
Figure 11.
Similarly, whenever a multi-octet field represents a numeric quantity
the left most bit of the whole field is the most significant bit. When
a multi-octet quantity is transmitted the most significant octet is
transmitted first.
[Page 39]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
[Page 40]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
GLOSSARY
1822
BBN Report 1822, "The Specification of the Interconnection of
a Host and an IMP". The specification of interface between a
host and the ARPANET.
ARPANET leader
The control information on an ARPANET message at the host-IMP
interface.
ARPANET message
The unit of transmission between a host and an IMP in the
ARPANET. The maximum size is about 1012 octets (8096 bits).
ARPANET packet
A unit of transmission used internally in the ARPANET between
IMPs. The maximum size is about 126 octets (1008 bits).
Destination
The destination address, an internet header field.
DF
The Don't Fragment bit carried in the flags field.
Flags
An internet header field carrying various control flags.
Fragment Offset
This internet header field indicates where in the internet
datagram a fragment belongs.
GGP
Gateway to Gateway Protocol, the protocol used primarily
between gateways to control routing and other gateway
functions.
header
Control information at the beginning of a message, segment,
datagram, packet or block of data.
ICMP
Internet Control Message Protocol, implemented in the internet
module, the ICMP is used from gateways to hosts and between
hosts to report errors and make routing suggestions.
[Page 41]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Glossary
Identification
An internet header field carrying the identifying value
assigned by the sender to aid in assembling the fragments of a
datagram.
IHL
The internet header field Internet Header Length is the length
of the internet header measured in 32 bit words.
IMP
The Interface Message Processor, the packet switch of the
ARPANET.
Internet Address
A four octet (32 bit) source or destination address consisting
of a Network field and a Local Address field.
internet datagram
The unit of data exchanged between a pair of internet modules
(includes the internet header).
internet fragment
A portion of the data of an internet datagram with an internet
header.
Local Address
The address of a host within a network. The actual mapping of
an internet local address on to the host addresses in a
network is quite general, allowing for many to one mappings.
MF
The More-Fragments Flag carried in the internet header flags
field.
module
An implementation, usually in software, of a protocol or other
procedure.
more-fragments flag
A flag indicating whether or not this internet datagram
contains the end of an internet datagram, carried in the
internet header Flags field.
NFB
The Number of Fragment Blocks in a the data portion of an
internet fragment. That is, the length of a portion of data
measured in 8 octet units.
[Page 42]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Glossary
octet
An eight bit byte.
Options
The internet header Options field may contain several options,
and each option may be several octets in length.
Padding
The internet header Padding field is used to ensure that the
data begins on 32 bit word boundary. The padding is zero.
Protocol
In this document, the next higher level protocol identifier,
an internet header field.
Rest
The local address portion of an Internet Address.
Source
The source address, an internet header field.
TCP
Transmission Control Protocol: A host-to-host protocol for
reliable communication in internet environments.
TCP Segment
The unit of data exchanged between TCP modules (including the
TCP header).
TFTP
Trivial File Transfer Protocol: A simple file transfer
protocol built on UDP.
Time to Live
An internet header field which indicates the upper bound on
how long this internet datagram may exist.
TOS
Type of Service
Total Length
The internet header field Total Length is the length of the
datagram in octets including internet header and data.
TTL
Time to Live
[Page 43]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
Glossary
Type of Service
An internet header field which indicates the type (or quality)
of service for this internet datagram.
UDP
User Datagram Protocol: A user level protocol for transaction
oriented applications.
User
The user of the internet protocol. This may be a higher level
protocol module, an application program, or a gateway program.
Version
The Version field indicates the format of the internet header.
[Page 44]
September 1981
Internet Protocol
REFERENCES
[1] Cerf, V., "The Catenet Model for Internetworking," Information
Processing Techniques Office, Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency, IEN 48, July 1978.
[2] Bolt Beranek and Newman, "Specification for the Interconnection of
a Host and an IMP," BBN Technical Report 1822, Revised May 1978.
[3] Postel, J., "Internet Control Message Protocol - DARPA Internet
Program Protocol Specification," RFC 792, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[4] Shoch, J., "Inter-Network Naming, Addressing, and Routing,"
COMPCON, IEEE Computer Society, Fall 1978.
[5] Postel, J., "Address Mappings," RFC 796, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[6] Shoch, J., "Packet Fragmentation in Inter-Network Protocols,"
Computer Networks, v. 3, n. 1, February 1979.
[7] Strazisar, V., "How to Build a Gateway", IEN 109, Bolt Beranek and
Newman, August 1979.
[8] Postel, J., "Service Mappings," RFC 795, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[9] Postel, J., "Assigned Numbers," RFC 790, USC/Information Sciences
Institute, September 1981.
[Page 45]